Vehicles daily inspection...

[charlaje]

... How to cover my back against dishonest users?

    At base transport, when I sign for a vehicle, they give me an blank inspection sheet, with a checklist of most of the visible parts (windshield, lights, fluids, etc.),  pictures to circle scratches and dents, and some blank space to write anything else worth mentioning.  I inspect my vehicle before taking the road, and fill the sheet accordingly.  After my driving task, I bring back that sheet filled up and signed to the dispatcher. 

    The next user who will use that vehicle the day after  has a little mishap and scratches the right fender during his task.  Unwilling to get the blame about that incident, he decides to write down the damage on the sheet as if he would take possession of the vehicle already damaged. 

    When dispatch sees that I was the previous user, and that damage was not reported on my sheet, I'm held responsible for two possible situations:

a) doing a bad inspection and failing to notice damage on the car,
b) being the one who had the accident and didn't report it at the end of my task.

    One possible solution would be to have dispatch inspecting the vehicle with the user once its back after the task, but he cannot leave his station unmanned so he totally relies on the inspection sheets.  Any ideas on how to improve that system, taking into account that its not possible for base transport to have their employees doing inspections rather than users?

Thank you!


       

 

[Fishbone Jones]

... How to cover my back against dishonest users?

    At base transport, when I sign for a vehicle, they give me an blank inspection sheet, with a checklist of most of the visible parts (windshield, lights, fluids, etc.),  pictures to circle scratches and dents, and some blank space to write anything else worth mentioning.  I inspect my vehicle before taking the road, and fill the sheet accordingly.  After my driving task, I bring back that sheet filled up and signed to the dispatcher. 

    The next user who will use that vehicle the day after  has a little mishap and scratches the right fender during his task.  Unwilling to get the blame about that incident, he decides to write down the damage on the sheet as if he would take possession of the vehicle already damaged. 

    When dispatch sees that I was the previous user, and that damage was not reported on my sheet, I'm held responsible for two possible situations:

a) doing a bad inspection and failing to notice damage on the car,
b) being the one who had the accident and didn't report it at the end of my task.

    One possible solution would be to have dispatch inspecting the vehicle with the user once its back after the task, but he cannot leave his station unmanned so he totally relies on the inspection sheets.  Any ideas on how to improve that system, taking into account that its not possible for base transport to have their employees doing inspections rather than users?

Thank you!


     

Simple. Everybody turns the inspection sheet into the Dispatcher before you turn a wheel. Just like going to Avis.

 

[George Wallace]

    One possible solution would be to have dispatch inspecting the vehicle with the user once its back after the task, but he cannot leave his station unmanned so he totally relies on the inspection sheets.  Any ideas on how to improve that system, taking into account that its not possible for base transport to have their employees doing inspections rather than users?
     

If the Dispatcher isn't doing this, then they are lazy.  This is the most important time that they should be inspecting the vehicle, as it is being returned to their Charge, and they should know the condition of the vehicles in their Charge.  It isn't that important that they accompany you when they sign it over to your Charge, but it is a nicety that they can do if not too busy. 

When you do your "First Parade" and inspect the vehicle, turning in your inspection sheet, that should indicate any faults you have found.  You are correct that someone else can doctor their inspection sheet if this procedure is not in place.  You must turn in your inspection sheet as soon as you sign for the vehicle.  If someone claims that you did damage, then it would be on their "First Parade" inspection sheet that they turned in at the beginning of their Detail, not at the end of their Detail.  Again, the Dispatcher should be there to verify the condition of the vehicle being returned to their Charge.
 

 

[BDTyre]

In Edmonton, I don't think I once had anyone working at dispatch inspect the vehicle with me.  They would inspect it - after I washed it and cleaned the interior - but only the inside and they were more concerned with finding faint footprint outlines than damage.

From what I remember, after first inspection, you sign off and you turn the sheet in.  You're supposed to do this before you even drive off the lot.  The next user shouldn't be able to cover up their little mishap by blaming it on you.  If they've kept the sheet when they first got the vehicle then dispatch isn't doing their job.

I also learned to never again sign out a vehicle for platoon use...but that is a different story.

 

[Wookilar]

This is all coming to a head now, as units are being directly charged for damages, whether it be from a rental veh or a CFR.  I know my DCO right now is going to lose it pretty soon if the damages keep piling up.

All you can do is your due diligence. Go over that veh with a fine tooth comb when you sign for it, mark everything down, even faint scratches. Look underneath, especially on trucks, at the skid plates and undercarriage. If you spot any damage, ANY damage at all, make sure you bring it to the attention of the Dispatcher before you drive away. CYA unfortunately.

As soon as Dispatch accepts your sign in sheet, they accept the veh. The system is largely honour driven, but this will make the duty Dispatchers get off their chairs and do In-inpsections again, the way it was always supposed to happen.

Wook

 

[George Wallace]

As Wookilar says.  Another point on this, is to ensure that you have whomever you are turning your vehicle over to, inspect it with you.  We had an incident where we suspect that damage was done to our Unit van after we turned it over to Base Maint for servicing.  Our Unit landed up having to conduct a Board of Inquiry, and do up an Accident Report on damages done to our vehicle, that no one knew about.  I suspect that someone damaged the vehicle in the Maint Compound and it was a "Hit and Run" scenario.  Of course we had no proof that this is what may have happened and we were on the hook for it.  Had we had a Maintainer inspect and sign for the vehicle, this would not have happened.......So DON'T JUST GIVE the Maint people the keys and workticket, have them inspect the vehicle and sign for it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Base Transport in Kingston does the DI for you, and you just double check the info. That way they control when damage is reported.

 

[charlaje]

Thanks for the great replies, its good to see perspectives from other bases.  Turn in the DI sheet before you take the road, then turn in your trip ticket after your done with your task seems the best solution. 

Following the same path, that same base transport also have a  section for SMP vehicles.  The difference is, we have employees that does in and out inspections.  Out inspections are done a couple days before customer gets the vehicles, while the in-inspection is done with the returning customer.  The employees have to write their name down on the DI sheet, so we know which one did the inspection.  The problem with that is once the car is turned in and parked in the compound, until another customer requests that vehicle and another out-inspection is made, the in-employee remains responsible.  So I could walk down the compound, do some damage to parked vehicles so once its picked-up, the responsibility will be on the in-employee for not noticing the damage while the customer was signed off. 


These are fictional situations that our system can possibly allow.  I'm not going to name which  base I'm from, or expose the good people that works there.  I'm merely stating examples of situations that could be avoided if a better system was implemented.  It just takes one disgruntled employee to wreak havoc on a whole section.